I was not protesting the existence of a mosque. I was protesting the LOCATION chosen for it...right at the heart of Ground Zero. My husband lost a very good friend and co-worker in 9/11, I don't know of a single family member of those lost on 9/11 who felt the mosque should be placed right near the center of that tragedy.

What does a mosque have to do with 9/11? Did you know there was already a mosque IN the one of the twin towers before they were destroyed?

Don't confuse the folks with facts. The only thing worse would be a synagoge. //:=|

Actually, what would be worse is creating a hub of buildings dedicated to the slicing up of creation into commodities to be bought and sold and banks to back the speculative interests of those to exploit the ignorance of others.

But, but - those are the "freedoms" that we're hated for around the world! Aren't they?

And just what do you have against synagogues mister? Is that an Adolf Hitler 'smiley'?

I don't doubt it. The only part of Roman Catholicism that seems to be moderately thriving is the traditional sector. Even seminaries that require 7 years of training, like Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary run by the traditionalist FSSP, have higher output than their Novus Ordo counterparts.

I apologize, but this issue is a pet peeve of mine so I'm going to rant about it for a bit.

First, it is true that Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary is over-applied and has to turn down applicants. They have also recently greatly increased their facility, IIRC they expanded from being able to take 50 seminarians per year to 150. (note that this is for a 7 year program, so that means that at the previous size a maximum of 7 per year would become priests, assuming no one fell out of the program). That is not really surprising, looking at it sociologically, since traditionalism of various forms is a nation-wide movement (with many congregations, a high birth rate and a highly strong socialization rate which would foster a number of vocations. And the FSSP is to my knowledge the only seminary-type program that would cater to that market). Nevertheless, since the FSSP is not schismatic a Catholic would have to rejoice at this, and indeed the 3-4 FSSP seminarians I met seemed to be the types who would make great priests.

That being said, the size of "regular" diocesan structures in my experience dwarfs the weight of the traditionalist movement. To talk priestly vocations, one diocese I've been to has 30-some people in the seminary right now, and has I believe 7 join up this year (I've met 3-4 of these dudes). Another diocese had something around 1000 people become Catholic this past Holy Saturday through the RCIA program - a number greater than the entire traditionalist presence in that diocese and its two neighbors. (we also hope that since they went through the RCIA process, most came out of conviction instead of "I'll do this to make my spouse's parents happy", who have alternate mechanisms).

So the traditionalist movement is thriving, but I think the regular Catholic system is also thriving in certain areas, and regardless it dwarfs traditionalism simply due to size.

As to the title of this thread.....

.... it depends of course on what one means by "liberal". If one bases simply on what political issues they preach about, there are a good number of politically liberal (i.e. preach about issues in a way that shows they prefer the Democrats) Catholic priests, perhaps a third or so of the ones I happen to know, in my area.

If one means "liberal" in the sense of what's been called in academia "liberal" theology for the past 150 years or so (the sorts of things you see in most mainline protestant churches), about 25% of the Catholic priests I've met in my area essentially fit that description (with the highest proportion in the Jesuits), while I've never met an Orthodox priest who espouses that kind of theology. At the same time, I've never met a Catholic priest under the age of 50 (which accounts for about 50% of the priests I know) who is for "liberal" theology. Most/all of these folks seem adhere very strongly to the present Catechism/papal line.

Logged

O Lord although I desired to blot outwith my tears the handwriting of my many sinsAnd for the rest of my life to please Thee through sincere repentanceYet doth the enemy lead me astray as he wareth against my sould with his cunning

but I think the regular Catholic system is also thriving in certain areas,

From things I have read in the past four or five years, "regular" RCC dioceses such as Omaha, NE and Saginaw, MI have larger than usual numbers of men going to seminary than other RCC dioceses.

Does each Catholic diocese have its own seminary or has there been any movement to consolidate to save resources - perhaps have regional seminaries, rather than one in each state? I don't know how the Catholic seminary system works, so I'm curious.

but I think the regular Catholic system is also thriving in certain areas,

From things I have read in the past four or five years, "regular" RCC dioceses such as Omaha, NE and Saginaw, MI have larger than usual numbers of men going to seminary than other RCC dioceses.

Does each Catholic diocese have its own seminary or has there been any movement to consolidate to save resources - perhaps have regional seminaries, rather than one in each state? I don't know how the Catholic seminary system works, so I'm curious.

Theodora Elizabeth,

I think each diocese used to, but the much reduced number of seminarians (as well as a decline in numbers of teachers) has reduced the number of seminaries. Since we now know that the seminary system of the time (50s-70s) had significant but hidden problems of heterodoxy and abuse, part of me thinks that may not a be a bad thing. I think the current system is a matter of "which seminaries have survived" and "which have been founded to meet current needs" on something like a market basis (dioceses will send their comparatively fewer seminarians to where they think has the best formation), as opposed to a centrally planned "one seminary per diocese". I also believe the Latin Church has more dioceses in the US now than it did in the 50s, spread out over all the country (as opposed to ethnic enclaves), which combined with cars in every house and cheap plane travel makes me think that a market approach may be better than everyone establishing their own seminary.

We see a bit in my Eparchy - i'm told that once we had our own seminary in Boston which did some teaching, but also sent people to classes at local theology schools (to include Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Seminary), then reportedly we sent most people straight to Holy Cross, but the only seminarian I know that we have now is at the Carpatho-Rusyn Greek Catholic seminary. No idea why these changes happened (none of my business really), but it does follow the general trend of having "our own" seminary to sending seminarians where we think is best (though I hope our seminary never had problems of abuse or heterodoxy!!!)

Markos

Logged

O Lord although I desired to blot outwith my tears the handwriting of my many sinsAnd for the rest of my life to please Thee through sincere repentanceYet doth the enemy lead me astray as he wareth against my sould with his cunning

but I think the regular Catholic system is also thriving in certain areas,

From things I have read in the past four or five years, "regular" RCC dioceses such as Omaha, NE and Saginaw, MI have larger than usual numbers of men going to seminary than other RCC dioceses.

Does each Catholic diocese have its own seminary or has there been any movement to consolidate to save resources - perhaps have regional seminaries, rather than one in each state? I don't know how the Catholic seminary system works, so I'm curious.

The ideal is that each diocese has their own seminary, however this isnt always the case. The diocese of Pittsburgh for example, has its own minor(college) seminary, however they send their seminarians to either Catholic University of America's Theological College, St. Vincents college/seminary(diocese of greensburg), or North American Theological College(Rome).In the diocese of Buffalo however, thyey send their seminarians to St. Marks Seminary(diocese of Erie, PA) for minor seminary, while they have their own major seminary.

but I think the regular Catholic system is also thriving in certain areas,

From things I have read in the past four or five years, "regular" RCC dioceses such as Omaha, NE and Saginaw, MI have larger than usual numbers of men going to seminary than other RCC dioceses.

Does each Catholic diocese have its own seminary or has there been any movement to consolidate to save resources - perhaps have regional seminaries, rather than one in each state? I don't know how the Catholic seminary system works, so I'm curious.

The ideal is that each diocese has their own seminary, however this isnt always the case. The diocese of Pittsburgh for example, has its own minor(college) seminary, however they send their seminarians to either Catholic University of America's Theological College, St. Vincents college/seminary(diocese of greensburg), or North American Theological College(Rome).In the diocese of Buffalo however, thyey send their seminarians to St. Marks Seminary(diocese of Erie, PA) for minor seminary, while they have their own major seminary.

We used to have our own minor seminary (don't know about past that). It is now the high school and the high school is now ABQ Uptown.

Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence